Filed Date: Oct. 1, 2008
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On Oct. 1, 2008, the Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission (IPAS) filed this lawsuit on behalf of a group of prisoners with serious mental illness in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. IPAS, represented by the ACLU, proceeded under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC), asking the court for injunctive and declaratory relief. IPAS alleged that IDOC failed to adequately treat the prisoners in non-segregated and therapeutic environments, as required by the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act.
Specifically, IPAS claimed that mentally ill prisoners were regularly held in isolation at multiple prisons throughout the state, and, for a number of them, the only contact they had with mental health staff was through brief conversations at their cell doors. The continued confinement of these mentally ill prisoners without adequate mental health care, IPAS argued, violated the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. Additionally, by placing these prisoners in segregated and isolated confinement, the state discriminated against them in violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
IPAS is an agency created by Indiana state law pursuant to the federal Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act. It is charged with advocating for and protecting the rights and interests of, among other parties, individuals with mental illness. IPAS claimed in its complaint that, because of its unique role in protecting the interests of mentally ill adults in Indiana, it has standing to bring suit on their behalf.
On December 15, 2008, IDOC filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing and jurisdiction; the state argued that IPAS's complaint presented only an "intramural" dispute between two state agencies, and should be resolved by the governor. On July 21, 2009, the court (Judge David F. Hamilton) denied IDOC's motion. It held that the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act empowered IPAS to sue on behalf of its mentally ill constituents; and the organization also satisfied the constitutional criteria for standing. The court also held that IPAS was not a traditional state agency and was independent of the governor. 642 F.Supp.2d 872.
On December 2, 2009, IPAS filed an amended complaint seeking class certification for all mentally ill prisoners in Indiana housed in settings that feature extended periods of isolation in cells. On April 27, 2010, the court (Magistrate Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson) granted IPAS's motion to certify the class. 2010 WL 1737821.
On July 25, 2011, after some discovery disputes (see 603 F.3d 365), a bench trial commenced before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt; it lasted five days. On December 31, 2012, the court filed an entry following the bench trial. It found that segregation harms mentally ill prisoners in three ways: (1) the lack of social interaction itself creates problems associated with isolation; (2) the isolation involves significant sensory deprivation; and (3) the enforced idleness exacerbates the prisoners' symptoms of serious mental illness. The court went on to find that the mentally ill prisoners in IDOC segregation units do not receive minimally adequate mental health care and that IDOC has been deliberately indifferent regarding this care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court then scheduled a conference with both parties to establish an appropriate remedy to the constitutional violation. 2012e WL 6738517.
From 2013-2016, the parties met to develop a plan for IDOC to remedy the constitutional violations found by the court. They entered status reports periodically throughout the years.
On January 2, 2016, the parties proposed a settlement agreement that prohibited, with some exceptions, the confinement of seriously mentally ill prisoners in restrictive status housing or protective custody (i.e., solitary confinement). As a general rule, no prisoner who was seriously mentally ill would be placed into restrictive housing. The agreement defined severe mental illness to include people who entered solitary with less than severe mental illnesses but whose mental health deteriorated due to solitary. And, the agreement provided for "minimum adequate treatment" for these prisoners. IDOC also agreed to pay $585,000 in attorneys' fees. The agreement would last for three years.
On March 24, 2016, Judge Pratt approved the settlement agreement finding that it was “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” The court was to retain jurisdiction over the case for three years at the conclusion of which the case will be dismissed without prejudice.
On October 16, 2018, a class member filed a motion to order contempt of court, alleging that IDOC failed to comply with the settlement agreement. On October 18, 2018, Judge Pratt denied the motion, finding that no defendant was in contempt.
In March 2019, a short time before the settlement was due to expire, the parties agreed to extend the settlement term. The state wanted to terminate the settlement in a different case about prisoners with serious mental illness at Indiana's Secured Housing Unit, Mast v. Commissioner, No. 2:05-cv-00037 (see related cases). The plaintiffs agreed to that termination if the settlement agreement in this case would be extended until one year after the Mast termination. The Court agreed to this approach.
After a fairness hearing, the Mast district court terminated that case on July 23, 2019. Accordingly, this case's settlement term was extended until July 23, 2020. However, due to a 2018 fire in the Pendleton Treatment Unit and delays in repairs, plaintiffs reported that, as of March 2020, the group therapy requirements specified in the settlement agreement are not being met. Instead of the required 10 hours of of out-of-cell treatment a week, some inmates at Pendleton are only receiving 3-5 hours of group therapy each week. As a result, plaintiffs have proposed extending the settlement an additional one year, to July 23, 2021, to allow the IDOC to achieve and maintain full compliance with the terms of the settlement before its termination. The IDOC is considering this proposal, and the case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Andrew Junker (10/9/2014)
Jessica Kincaid (2/5/2016)
Hope Brinn (11/17/2018)
Elena Malik (3/12/2020)
Mast v. Indiana Department of Corrections, Southern District of Indiana (2005)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4799419/parties/indiana-protection-and-advocacy-services-commission-v-commissioner/
Crishon, Thomas E. (Indiana)
Davis, Karen T. (Indiana)
Arthur, David A. (Indiana)
Beaver, Eric James (Indiana)
Carter, Stephen (Indiana)
Dinsmore, Mark. J. (Indiana)
Hamilton, David Frank (Indiana)
Lynch, Debra McVicker (Indiana)
Magnus-Stinson, Jane Elizabeth (Indiana)
Pratt, Tanya Walton (Indiana)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4799419/indiana-protection-and-advocacy-services-commission-v-commissioner/
Last updated April 5, 2024, 3:10 a.m.
State / Territory: Indiana
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Post-WalMart decisions on class certification
Key Dates
Filing Date: Oct. 1, 2008
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A state agency charged by federal statute to advocate for and protect the interests of mentally ill adults in Indiana. Also the class of prisoners in Indiana with serious mental illness.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) Act, 42 U.S.C. § 10801
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration: 2016 - None
Content of Injunction:
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Issues
General:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Placement in detention facilities
Placement in mental health facilities
Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination-basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Medical/Mental Health:
Type of Facility: